Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008

Abhijit · Post by **Abhijit** » 22 Jul 2008 00:13

The 10 myths explored by PKI above have tipped the scale for me. Now I am in favor of India signing this deal (not that my opinion counts anywhere

). I believe that the objections stated in the myth article are comprehensive and succinct and mostly do not stand the scrutiny of prudent policy-making by taking a comprehensive view of the realities on the ground, the capabilities and limitations of Indian babucracy, scientific establishment and politicians.
On one hand PKi says that indigenous U is the panacea to the problem, but in the same breath he states that if we test in future and the U supply stops (as it may) we will be devastated. What stops us from continuing to develop indigenous sources of U while we take in the supplies that come in as part of the deal?
I do not find anywhere in the deal that it stops us from making more bombs, as many bombs as our presently declared strategic reactors and indigenous and stockpiled U allow us to make. So how does this deal cap our program? As far as I understand, the deal doesn't even stop us from building new strategic reactors nor does it force inspection on those reactors that we deem strategic. Again, how can this be termed a capping of the program?
there are legitimate concerns over unkil's perfidy in the past, especially its overt assistance to pakistan and covert overlooking of its terrorist activities against India on our home land and elsewhere. Does this deal embolden unkil to do more of the same? I do not see how it does.
There is this huge propaganda machine of unkil and the west that will raise an unprecedented hue and cry to blackball India if it ever tests. Granted. So we test only when we are forced by the circumstances or when we are able to and want to show the middle finger to the whole world. Until then we build ourselves up any which way we can.
there is angst that this deal does not make us on par with the NWS. Well that ship sailed a couple of decades ago and we were not on board. Doesn't mean that we refuse to board any other ship until that old ship comes back to our port and begs us to come aboard. Not gonna happen and we shouldn't base our policy-making on those sulks.
jmtnp.

paramu · Post by **paramu** » 22 Jul 2008 00:21

paramu wrote:Extraordinary. Never seen anything like this.
Dealers are all around and people are asking for proof.
Naming of airport is one such which every one can see.

'DEALERS' RUNNING GOVT, NUKE DEAL AGAINST INDIA'S INTEREST: BSP
Charging the ''dealers'' of running the UPA government, the BSP today said it opposed the Indo-US nuke deal which the government was trying to rush and which would compromise the sovereignty and integrity of the country.
Signing 123 Agreement amounts to accepting American hegemony

archan · Post by **archan** » 22 Jul 2008 00:22

kshirin wrote:I found NSN but couldnt find FATA. What is FATA please?

Lahaul Bila Quvvat,
What is the world coming to? (sorry could not resist this one

)
Here, mr. trainee

jash_p · Post by **jash_p** » 22 Jul 2008 00:26

I found NSN but couldnt find FATA. What is FATA please

it is newly formed state aka Talibanistan and carved out from Pakistan for Muslims who wants to practice Pure Islam, though Pakistan is called as Land of Pure but they are practicing Bhartiy Islam.

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 22 Jul 2008 00:30

NRao,

I don't think you get it. This is what many of us have been saying from day one.

IAEA does not have its own funding source. That is why it restricts inspections to countries that do not have nukes but may be trying to get them.

It simply does not make sense to inspect Indian plants because even if we are cheating, what's the worst that would happen - our stockpike goes from 150 nukes to 275? Big deal.

In fact, during the hearings in US Congress after J18, some Ayatollahs wanted US Govt to force India to pay for inspections because they knew that without it IAEA will have no incentive to do any more inspection on India than it does with the NWS.

However, I'm sure that those who see IAEA as CIA misspelled will find reasons to brush all this aside.

negi · Post by **negi** » 22 Jul 2008 00:50

Ok..

Imo the debate has now drifted into the political aspects of the deal which imo can/should be
avoided, simply because :

1. how does this matter if this deal is in interest of US ?

What matters is does this deal serve India's interests , from a layman's view I see this deal
a means to meet our energy requirements , unless this deal goes through I don't see
how on earth are we gonna meet our energy requirements unless some one against the deal
comes up with a way to extract energy from 'Bhaikum'.

2. If Congress or other political parties have been paid by the Unkil to see this deal through.

Again.. common guys are we even bothered as to how much money political parties are making out of this, So what if congress and Co make money out of this as long as this in line with country's interests do we even care, for the arguments sake I can cook up a conspiracy theory (heck do I even have to ?) about China paying the left to derail this deal.

3. And lastly and most important I dont see why people relate this deal to GOI's freedom to TEST the nuke.

Let us assume we do not sign this deal just because of the above reason...then what ? when do we plan to test and say validate our new nukes (for which this ruckus is being created ) ? I am sure then on this very forum people will stand divided on the decision to test . Yes the freedom to test is required but so is 'ENERGY' I would leave it for a common man to decide as to what his priorities are (Given the fact that everyone on this forum agrees to the fact that our current nuclear capability is sufficient to foil any attack , infact Imo more than the 'NUKES' it is the delivery platforms which need to be worked upon, but then that is completly unrelated to the deal.)

Also I would like to know does the argument supporting the need for test ,based upon the assumption that Pokharan-II tests did not meet their designed yields ?

If that is the case then bhai log perhaps we need to first come to a conclusion on the Pokharan-II before even we make/express our opinion on the DEAL.

paramu · Post by **paramu** » 22 Jul 2008 00:59

negi wrote:
Again.. common guys are we even bothered as to how much money political parties are making out of this, So what if congress and Co make money out of this as long as this in line with country's interests do we even care, for the arguments sake I can cook up a conspiracy theory (heck do I even have to ?) about China paying the left to derail this deal.

Thanks for being the first person to be honest.

negi · Post by **negi** » 22 Jul 2008 01:02

Nope.. I am not agreeing to the assumption or allegation that bribes are/have been paid for seeing this deal through . I am merely trying to simplify things for the discussion to proceed.

It is now upto the ones who are using the above point to peddle their argument to clarify how does it matter if people are making money on this issue ? the MERITS of the DEAL itself should be the governing points of this discussion.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 22 Jul 2008 01:06

a senior safeguards analyst of the IAEA Diane Fischer, said 'what's the point of inspecting a nuclear weapons state like India'.

My, my... Non Proliferation Ayatollah David Albright called it a 'fool's errand' and it seems some IAEA inspectors don't want to be fools....

archan · Post by **archan** » 22 Jul 2008 01:23

Does this explicitly mean that "you can have the fuel and use it however you like, just keep sending those yearly/quarterly/whaterver-ly reports" ??
If yes, will the suppliers be comfortable selling fuel to India?

a_kumar · Post by **a_kumar** » 22 Jul 2008 01:37

narayanan wrote: No power to make cement, no power to make power lines, no fuel to build roads. So no investors for power plants. So no need for nuke deal. The next PM Comrade Karat can win applause at the Global Warming Summit by presenting India's great efforts to reduce development. Back to the Yindoo Rate of Growth. Bhavitavyam Bhavedeva. All is Maya. Back to navel-gazing and deep breaths. I would plan to retire to the Himalayas, except those are going to be called "Chun-Ling Mountains" and they'll ask for a passport and visa in the foothills.

I guess the contention is, is it really going to be a doomsday situation we are making it out to be. One view hinges around the following

- The Indo-US deal is a stop-gap step, so a temporary setback in big scheme of things.
- NPAs and US Congress are already used to this idea, kicking and screaming. So its out there now and not so much of an uphill task next time around.

- DAE is not sitting idle
- This deal will not help current powercuts or powercuts for the next 7-8 years
- The govt. falling will not mean doors closed shut on this topic.

I do see a big plus in the deal terms of fuel. Why burn your precious fuel (when available ofcource) when you can get it off the market. But is this moment really the life or death situation?

In any case, this is a moot point now. Suffice to say it still gives me "heartburn" that this will revive a dynasty on decline for something that may not be a doomsday situation. We will pay for it, and maybe its worth it.. we will find out.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Jul 2008 01:57

R,

I left that track long back. My vote is for #2. Morphing of acronyms is just starting. This women is crying because she will cease to exist when the acronyms morph - including IAEA. In a morphed world there are no funding problems - as they face now.

My feel is that the US is waiting for 150 to become 151. Because, the big deal is to make that a 0. They are aware that they can no longer force the issue, but they also are aware that they need to arrest the issue. Who cares for 150 or 275, a count of FM will tackle that issue.

Funds for all this: universal health care, recipients.

The rest is there in my earlier posts.

Bina Bullworker · Post by **Bina Bullworker** » 22 Jul 2008 02:22

I feel I am watching HBO mini series 'ROME' enacted in Indraprast

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 22 Jul 2008 02:25

ABSURD, STRUTTING MALES - The course of the nuclear contretemps is determined by ego

Writing on the wall - Ashok V. Desai

Manmohan Singh met George W. Bush in New York three years ago. Bush, a genuine Texan backwoodsman, took an immediate liking to Manmohan Singh, a real Indian from the plains of Punjab. India had been expelled from the caste of well behaved nations after the Bharatiya Janata Party staged the nuclear ceremony in 1998. Bush offered to escort India to the nuclear Panchayat and get it readmitted. The purification ceremony would be conducted in two phases. First, American Congress would remove the sanctions it had imposed on India. Then the US would take India by the hand, introduce it to the members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group and ask the Group to admit it. It would have to accept the disciplines imposed by the NSG and administered by the International Atomic Energy Agency; for example, once admitted to the NSG, it would no longer be able to do an A.Q. Khan. If it promised to behave well, it would be able to import nuclear power stations and fuel for them from members of the NSG, and send them spent fuel for safe storage.

While Bush wanted to remove India’s stigma of untouchability, India also had its Brahmins, the Communists, who considered the US untouchable. They did not mind the purification ceremony required to enter the caste of nuclear suppliers. But they did not think the purification would be pucca if an untouchable like the US escorted India to it. They wanted high-born, Brahmin nations like China to sponsor India. The US is not exactly friendly to China. Although China is now on a capitalist growing spree, the Communists consider it to be a comrade that has temporarily lost its way but which will, when it is rich enough, return to communism.

Besides, the Communists can no longer live on handouts from Russia and China. Their sights have risen. Now they own two cash cows in India — Kerala and West Bengal. Occupation of states gives them far more wherewithal than charity of their big brothers abroad ever would. And then they discovered a third cash cow in Manmohan Singh. If they befriended him, he would ask his government to pour billions into their captive states.

Thus, the Communists managed to extract a good price for support; and the Congress did not mind paying it since the alternative was to be out of power, in which case Congressmen might just as well have retired and gone home to enjoy their considerable wealth.

The pecuniary details of the compact were, of course, kept secret and never written down, even by mistake. But as a fig leaf, the two sides agreed on a Common Minimum Programme in 2004. It was a good enough document, but it lacked a critical element: it did not spell out how new subjects — those that were not in the CMP — would be dealt with. But it was clear how to deal with them: the two sides would sit down and agree on fresh additions to the CMP.

One such subject was readmission into the nuclear high caste. It was a sticking point because the untouchable US was India’s sponsor. That should have been clear to the Communists from the day Bush met Manmohan Singh. But the two sides were benefiting enormously from their deal: the Congress was in power, and the Communists got billions from the Centre. So Manmohan Singh went ahead with the purification ceremonies, and the Communists pretended as if they knew nothing about it.

Then, suddenly, the ceremonies loomed close ahead; the Congress-Communist consultation machinery was cranked up. It worked overtime. Pranab Mukherjee, that inimitable lubricator, was put in charge of it. But he could not bring the two sides together.

They never agreed on the nuclear ceremonies; why did they not break up before? Conversely, if they could pull on despite disagreements till now, why can they not now? One answer is that the deal has reached a point of decision: if the government jumps the next two hoops, it will be in the charmed circle of nuclear suppliers. It did not reach this point for all these years. That may have been accidental; but more likely, Manmohan Singh just delayed the ceremonies so that he could stay in power. He has now acted because not upsetting the Communists is no longer a sufficient condition for staying in power. The new condition is that the Congress has to win a general election — and work out alliances that would bring it back to power. Going through the nuclear ceremonies would have brought down the government; now, it will fall whether it goes through them or not. And it does not see an advantage in taking the Communists into the electoral alliance it has to forge. Suddenly, the Communists have become expendable.

And the Communists — why are they prepared to break on such a frivolous issue? As far I see, they are not against accepting IAEA safeguards. They are not against India joining the NSG. All they are against is the US sponsoring India’s application to the NSG. The Communists are not saying that India must be sponsored by China or Russia; any old member of NSG would do, as long as it was not the US.

The Communists may be devout and irrational, but Manmohan Singh is not. Why does he not find another member of the NSG to sponsor India? The answer is that the US has laid out its own ceremony in its 123 Act that countries have to go through before they are admitted to the nuclear high caste. Purification is a two-step ceremony. First a country has to be washed clean by the Brahmins of US Congress; only then would the NSG consider anointing them.

Why, then, does Manmohan Singh not leave it to the next government to go through all the ceremonies? There is at least an 80 per cent chance that the next government will be led by the Congress or the BJP, and will initiate the ceremonies. Is that not good enough? Not for Manmohan Singh, for he may not head the next government.

Why, then, did Manmohan Singh not take the BJP with him at every step in the nuclear ceremonies? Why did he not tell them the ceremonies were their idea? Because the Communists would not have liked it. They wanted to be the Congress’s exclusive prop. A grand coalition was not an option because the Communists would not eat at the same table as the BJP.

And the chances are 100 per cent that the BJP will go through the ceremonies if it comes to power. Why, then, does it not support Manmohan Singh? Because this government is not headed by Advani; he wants to be the man who led India into the new nuclear world.

Those outside politics may see politicians as despicable creatures devoid of self-respect. But in fact they have enormous egos; it is their egos that have determined the tortuous course of the nuclear contretemps. That is why they surround themselves with armed guards and keep their own company; mingling with normal people may hurt their ego.
Top
Email This Page

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 22 Jul 2008 02:44

BUDGET BUSTERS
But McCain may not want to follow the French example too closely. While France's existing 59 atomic plants are relatively trouble-free, its largest nuclear company, Areva, has run into difficulties building next-generation reactors in France and Finland. The Finnish project is two years behind schedule and more than $1.5 billion over budget, while construction of the other plant, in Normandy, was temporarily halted in late May because of quality concerns. And while France has the world's biggest fuel-reprocessing program, it still hasn't found a permanent home for a growing pile of highly radioactive waste that's left over. The waste sits in heavily guarded storage at Areva's La Hague reprocessing plant.

The U.S. nuclear industry believes that delays and cost overruns, which helped kill new plant construction in the late 1970s, are less likely today, thanks to now-standardized reactor designs and a streamlined U.S. government licensing process. That process has yet to be tested, though, and costs for new plants are climbing. Two years ago, the price of a 1,500-megawatt reactor was pegged at $2 billion to $3 billion. Now it's up to $7 billion and rising, as the cost of concrete, steel, and other materials and labor soars. MidAmerican Energy Holdings (BRK), a gas and electric utility owned by Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway (BRK), shelved its own nuke plan earlier this year, saying it no longer made economic sense. "The country badly needs new nuclear plants to deal with the climate issue," says John W. Rowe, chief executive officer of Exelon (EXC), currently the largest nuke operator, and chairman of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's trade group. "But they are very expensive, very high-risk projects."

So risky and expensive, in fact, that building new ones won't happen without hefty government support. NRG Energy (NRG), Dominion (D), Duke Energy (DUK), and six other companies have already leaped to file applications to construct and operate new plants largely because of incentives Congress has put in place. The subsidies include a 1.8 cents tax credit for each kilowatt hour of electricity produced, which could be worth more than $140 million per reactor per year; a $500 million payout for each of the first two plants built (and $250 million each for the next four) if there are delays for reasons outside company control; and a total of $18.5 billion in loan guarantees. The latter is crucial, since it shifts the risk onto the federal government, making it possible to raise capital from skittish banks. "Without the loan guarantees, I think it would be very difficult for the first wave of plants to move forward," says David W. Crane, CEO of NRG.

Even $18.5 billion won't guarantee the debt needed to build dozens of reactors, though. And the current limit on the loan guarantee is just one bottleneck. Only two companies, Japan Steel Works and France's Creusot Forge, a unit of Areva, are capable of forging key reactor parts such as massive pressure vessels. There are also shortages of contractors with nuclear certification and of skilled workers—even a lack of potential sites for new reactors. The proposed plants are all next to existing reactors. Builders of the power plants, utility executives say, are unwilling to commit to fixed prices and fixed schedules. Most companies want to be paid their actual costs, including overruns, plus a reasonable return, says one CEO.

That's why experts say the much-heralded nuclear "renaissance" will be slow to flower. "I'm not quite sure the number McCain put out is obtainable," says Adrian Heymer, senior director for new plant deployment at the Nuclear Energy Institute. "If there are any hiccups in coming in on time or on budget, it will be a struggle to go much beyond the first eight or 10 plants." Exelon's Rowe adds that the industry can't grow until the government solves the waste problem, either by opening a proposed storage site in Nevada, or by setting up surface storage facilities around the country. And in the long run, to cut the amount of waste, he says, "it's very clear that we've got to have a fuel-recycling technology."

The trouble is, separating out plutonium in the spent fuel for reuse is costly and dangerous, argue critics like Princeton University physicist Frank N. von Hippel. And in any case, worries over separated plutonium being diverted to make bombs led the U.S. to ban reprocessing 31 years ago.

The upcoming election will pull many of these issues into the limelight. The nuclear industry's call for still more government support will find a more sympathetic ear in McCain than in Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.). The presumptive Democratic nominee agrees nuclear energy could help combat global warming, but he says there are better alternatives. Indeed, many Democrats and renewable power advocates are upset that the playing field is tilted so far in favor of nukes. Robert Fishman, a veteran utility executive who is now CEO of solar startup Ausra, says the investment tax credit sought by the solar industry would cost less than 1% of the dollars going to nukes and fossil fuels. "I don't think we've done a good job laying out to Senator McCain what the renewable industry can do for the country," Fishman says. So it looks like a few nuclear plants may come online in the U.S.—some as early as 2016—but not as many as McCain wants.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 22 Jul 2008 02:49

Thus spake PK Iyengar, former chairman, Atomic Energy Commission:

It is easy to see why the US wants this deal so badly. At virtually no cost, since there is no commitment towards fuel supplies, they can cap our strategic programme, bring us into the NPT net through the back door, as a non-nuclear power, keep a close eye on our nuclear activities, including R&D, through intrusive IAEA inspections, and subjugate us to the wishes of the nuclear cartel.

Far less erudite on nuke issues than PKI, but these are exactly my fears too. Thats why I say that in order to build some trust, junk this deal for the moment, slowly but steadily build indo-US relations to the point where US does indeed demonstrate (abandoning the India TSP equal equal policy for a start) some trust, and then make the deal operational.

paramu · Post by **paramu** » 22 Jul 2008 03:02

So pro-dealers believe that this deal is worth:

- paying 1000s of crores as bribe to different politicians
- corrupting our political structure like stinking dirt
- setting precedents of bringing convicted criminals from prisons back into parliament
- risking the survival of UPA government on just one issue
- making all types of compromises with all insignificant parties on all types of issues
- MMS willing to rip off his own image of a honest leader

Can not even be delegated to next goverment to sign after proper mandate from public.

What are those guys smoking? must be something real good.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 22 Jul 2008 03:05

This is MUCH better than reading BRF. Nearly 50% as good as reading the BENIS dhaga.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 22 Jul 2008 03:07

I don't see why ppl are

about payoffs to MPs to vote one way or another. It's routine to do this in any democracy, except that they call it development $$ to their home constituencies, and the baksheesh has to come from the govt. contracts. Watch "West Wing". I bet if u read Mahabharatha, u'll surely c some deals struck there too to get various armies on one side or another.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 22 Jul 2008 03:11

Renegotiate what?

Renegotiate what?
G. Balachandran
Posted online: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 at 2251 hrs
Even critics of the current nuclear deal know they can’t top it

G. Balachandran

About the Indo-US nuclear deal, it is time to call a spade a spade — especially the assertions made by political parties and personnel from the Department of Atomic Energy, the IFS and others that the Indo-US nuclear deal will be renegotiated by them if they are in charge -- none of them stating clearly what will be renegotiated. The deal as negotiated cannot be bettered in the short to medium term, given the current international scenario.

There are three elements of the process so far that have attracted criticism. They are the Hyde Act; the India-US 123 agreement; and the India-IAEA safeguards agreement. Let us take them in order.

The Hyde Act: No analyst of any repute has even remotely suggested that the international embargo on civil nuclear trade as a result of NSG guidelines could have been removed without US initiative. Even Russia and France, staunch supporters of India in the NSG, have admitted this.

After India conducted its first nuclear test in 1974, the US amended its Atomic Energy Act (AEA) effectively terminating all US-India civil nuclear trade Many amendments were formal restatements of existing laws, accepted earlier by India in its Tarapur agreement. There were however, two sections which were are and might be relevant to India-US nuclear commerce. The first, Sec. 121(a) (2), requires fullscope safeguards on all nuclear activities in a non-nuclear weapon-state (NNWS) with whom US can trade... Since India is a NNWS under NPT and thus US law this effectively put a stop to all US-India civil nuclear cooperation. Another section added to the AEA was Sec. 121(a) (4) which effectively required the US to take back all material and facilities exported in case such a NNWS conducted a nuclear test. Sec. 121 also required that all these elements be included in any 123 agreement concluded with that country.

The Hyde Act removed the requirement of Sec. 121(a) (2) enabling US-India civil nuclear commerce. It did not exempt India from the requirements of Sec.121 (a) (4). However, the subsequent 123 agreement that was negotiated by the Indian government, in line with the Prime Minister’s promise to Parliament, did not refer to testing in its text. However, there can be no doubt that the US retains the right to require implementation of Sec.121 (a) (4) for all practical purposes.

The fundamental question is: will any future Indian government be able to negotiate a 123 agreement that will have a written promise that the US will not impose any sanctions on India if India were to conduct a test in future? No analyst from any political party or professional fraternity has gone on record to state that that this is possible.

What about the Hyde Act? It is already part of US law. While there may be many who are unhappy with the Act, no one seriously suggests that they will be able to influence the US Congress to modify it or pass another law.

Therefore, there is nothing anyone in this government or future government, be it BJP, BSP or the Marxists, can do about the Hyde Act. On the other hand, it is purely a US domestic law and has no relevance for India.

The 123 agreement: As mentioned earlier there is no question of the 123 agreement formally renouncing any action against India if it were to conduct a future test. However, the text has leeway in it for a future US government to exercise restraint with AEA rights; it also formally recognised India’s right to an independent nuclear programme and did not mention tests. Again, there can be no substantive improvement over the negotiated language.

Finally, assurances on fuel supply. The only sanction left for the US in case of a test will be to withhold nuclear fuel. No future Indian government can negotiate a 123 agreement that will promise unimpeded supply of nuclear fuel to India even if India were to conduct a test. However, India can include sufficient penalties for stopping fuel in the commercial contract that it will negotiate for specific imports; it already has for Tarapur.

What about supply of sensitive nuclear technologies: reprocessing and enrichment technologies? Those who mention the US-Japan agreement have simply not paid attention to the very intrusive conditions in that agreement. Further, reaching that agreement took a decade: it is far better that India chose to postpone this issue, although the India 123 agreement does include a requirement that the US consider such proposals favourably. The fundamental question is this: can any future Indian government negotiate a prior consent for sensitive nuclear technologies without the attendant restrictive safeguards, some of them bilateral? Here again no analysts of any repute, Indian or otherwise, would dare publicly suggest that it is possible.

The India-specific IAEA safeguards agreement: Much has been made of the absence of “corrective measures” that India will take if fuel supply assurances are not kept. The fact is the safeguards agreement is a bilateral agreement between India and the IAEA: merely an intermediary not owning any nuclear fuel or technologies. The terms and conditions of fuel supply assurances are a matter of negotiation between the supplier and the purchaser. If that agreement specifies that India can take whatever “corrective measures” it chooses, including withdrawal of the supplied item from safeguards then so be it. The negotiated IAEA safeguards agreement incorporates this element, and can do no more explicitly.

In short no critic of the Indian government’s negotiating posture can say, in public, with any degree of confidence that they will be able negotiate a better agreement on any of the specific points noted above.

The writer is visting fellow at IDSA and National Maritime Foundation

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 22 Jul 2008 03:14

I agree with N guru, as long as the money is with in India, enrichment is fine with me. I believe in trickle down ecnomics.

Paging Suraj garu does this increase Indian GDP many fold rightaway. See the benefits of Nuke deal any opposition is futile, make money while uncle smiles!

I am kinda worried about the collapse of swiss banks as Indian business men and the cabinet may be withdrawing large chunks to cover the spread (of wealth)

Swiss bank diwala in hawala

archan · Post by **archan** » 22 Jul 2008 03:42

paramu wrote: - corrupting our political structure like stinking dirt
- setting precedents of bringing convicted criminals from prisons back into parliament

Excuse me, the deal or any other outside element cannot corrupt an un-corrupt system. The rot of corruption is from within, the external factors are merely bringing it out in the limelight. Deal or no deal, this is one good thing that happened - and hopefully will open many voters' eyes for the future.

paramu · Post by **paramu** » 22 Jul 2008 03:44

You mean 1000s of crores are being exchanged every week in our political system.
Scale of current events is so massive. And for what? 10 more months in power?

archan · Post by **archan** » 22 Jul 2008 03:48

No, no no. Don't go by the numbers. The numbers may change from time to time depending on the "need" and availability of funds. The mere fact that no one out there is clean has been exposed yet again and one hopes that the voters see them for what they are - salable heads. All this "hamara neta xyz" with their "leadership qualities" gets reduced to this when the time comes to take decisions of national interests.

paramu · Post by **paramu** » 22 Jul 2008 03:50

archan wrote:No, no no. Don't go by the numbers. The numbers may change from time to time depending on the "need" and availability of funds. The mere fact that no one out there is clean has been exposed yet again and one hopes that the voters see them for what they are - salable heads. All this "hamara neta xyz" with their "leadership qualities" gets reduced to this when the time comes to take decisions of national interests.

Exactly, what is the source of funds for our clean leader?
Corruption in our system is currently being exploited, in the name of the deal.

ranganathan · Post by **ranganathan** » 22 Jul 2008 03:58

narayanan wrote:I don't see why ppl are about payoffs to MPs to vote one way or another. It's routine to do this in any democracy, except that they call it development $$ to their home constituencies, and the baksheesh has to come from the govt. contracts. Watch "West Wing". I bet if u read Mahabharatha, u'll surely c some deals struck there too to get various armies on one side or another.

Were you not the one bawling about paying $$ to US companies but not DRDO for MRCA and SAMs?? Why should India sign this deal when it is clear that it is same as handing over the keys of India's nuke deterrent to US? France and russia may support the deal but then loss of nukes by India does not affect them in anyway now does it? I would rather this govt fall and the US be made to come clear on all important questions raised by the Indian scientists. If the Uranium supply cannot be guaranteed even if we carpet nuke pakistan out of existence then scrap the deal completely. Thanks but no thanks.They can sell their reactors to china for all we care.

archan · Post by **archan** » 22 Jul 2008 04:02

Sources will change from time to time. Like Shiv mentioned in an earlier post, most likely the sources are internal rather than external. Internal bribes are easier than taking them from for example unkil, which come with a lot more stringent strings attached. All I am saying that the corruption is rabid and has infested the system deeply and this issue has brought it out in the open like probably no other issue has. Once all this drama is over, I hope some sensible people are left who would talk about electoral reforms. Though it is not much of a hope. Perhaps, we Indians as a whole lack enough nationalism and until that emotion comes out at the top of all others, selfless leaders like those of yesteryears (of the ilk of Sardar Patel) will not be found anywhere. Someone said rightly, it is not about the deal anymore.

archan · Post by **archan** » 22 Jul 2008 04:10

ramana wrote:I know the confidence vote is no longer about thenuke deal but
Pioneer, 22 July 2008

10 myths about N-deal

PK Iyengar

Myth 8: Without the nuclear deal, we cannot get adequate uranium for our domestic nuclear programme.

The Department of Atomic Energy has always maintained that we have enough indigenous uranium for 10,000 MW of nuclear power for 30 years. We are not yet close to that number. The present mismatch in uranium availability for operating reactors is a consequence of poor planning, and inadequate prospecting and mining. There is talk of importing 40,000 MW of nuclear power, which will cost not less than $ 100 billion or Rs 4 lakh crore. If even 10 per cent of this money were to be spent on uranium mining in existing mines in Andhra Pradesh and Meghalaya, on searching for new uranium deposits, and negotiating with non-NSG countries, there will be enough uranium for a robust indigenous nuclear power programme, until such time as thorium reactors take over.

-- The writer is former chairman, Atomic Energy Commission.

What do people think about this point? obviously the writer knows a lot about the subject. So is it absolutely true that one can get 10,000 MW of power per year for 30 years using indigenous U?
I understand that the infrastructure to achieve that might not be there. What will be the gains over this if the deal goes through in its current form? because from the looks of it, the deal does not guarantee any sale of U to India, it only says "ok, people can now sell it to you". At what price will they sell it? what conditions will they attach to it? it is all unknown to me.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 22 Jul 2008 05:36

John Snow wrote:

BUDGET BUSTERS
But McCain may not want to follow the French example too closely. While France's existing 59 atomic plants are relatively trouble-free, its largest nuclear company, Areva, has run into difficulties building next-generation reactors in France and Finland. The Finnish project is two years behind schedule and more than $1.5 billion over budget, while construction of the other plant, in Normandy, was temporarily halted in late May because of quality concerns. And while France has the world's biggest fuel-reprocessing program, it still hasn't found a permanent home for a growing pile of highly radioactive waste that's left over. The waste sits in heavily guarded storage at Areva's La Hague reprocessing plant.

The U.S. nuclear industry believes that delays and cost overruns, which helped kill new plant construction in the late 1970s, are less likely today, thanks to now-standardized reactor designs and a streamlined U.S. government licensing process. That process has yet to be tested, though, and costs for new plants are climbing. Two years ago, the price of a 1,500-megawatt reactor was pegged at $2 billion to $3 billion. Now it's up to $7 billion and rising, as the cost of concrete, steel, and other materials and labor soars. MidAmerican Energy Holdings (BRK), a gas and electric utility owned by Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway (BRK), shelved its own nuke plan earlier this year, saying it no longer made economic sense. "The country badly needs new nuclear plants to deal with the climate issue," says John W. Rowe, chief executive officer of Exelon (EXC), currently the largest nuke operator, and chairman of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's trade group. "But they are very expensive, very high-risk projects."

So risky and expensive, in fact, that building new ones won't happen without hefty government support. NRG Energy (NRG), Dominion (D), Duke Energy (DUK), and six other companies have already leaped to file applications to construct and operate new plants largely because of incentives Congress has put in place. The subsidies include a 1.8 cents tax credit for each kilowatt hour of electricity produced, which could be worth more than $140 million per reactor per year; a $500 million payout for each of the first two plants built (and $250 million each for the next four) if there are delays for reasons outside company control; and a total of $18.5 billion in loan guarantees. The latter is crucial, since it shifts the risk onto the federal government, making it possible to raise capital from skittish banks. "Without the loan guarantees, I think it would be very difficult for the first wave of plants to move forward," says David W. Crane, CEO of NRG.

Even $18.5 billion won't guarantee the debt needed to build dozens of reactors, though. And the current limit on the loan guarantee is just one bottleneck. Only two companies, Japan Steel Works and France's Creusot Forge, a unit of Areva, are capable of forging key reactor parts such as massive pressure vessels. There are also shortages of contractors with nuclear certification and of skilled workers—even a lack of potential sites for new reactors. The proposed plants are all next to existing reactors. Builders of the power plants, utility executives say, are unwilling to commit to fixed prices and fixed schedules. Most companies want to be paid their actual costs, including overruns, plus a reasonable return, says one CEO.

That's why experts say the much-heralded nuclear "renaissance" will be slow to flower. "I'm not quite sure the number McCain put out is obtainable," says Adrian Heymer, senior director for new plant deployment at the Nuclear Energy Institute. "If there are any hiccups in coming in on time or on budget, it will be a struggle to go much beyond the first eight or 10 plants." Exelon's Rowe adds that the industry can't grow until the government solves the waste problem, either by opening a proposed storage site in Nevada, or by setting up surface storage facilities around the country. And in the long run, to cut the amount of waste, he says, "it's very clear that we've got to have a fuel-recycling technology."

The trouble is, separating out plutonium in the spent fuel for reuse is costly and dangerous, argue critics like Princeton University physicist Frank N. von Hippel. And in any case, worries over separated plutonium being diverted to make bombs led the U.S. to ban reprocessing 31 years ago.

The upcoming election will pull many of these issues into the limelight. The nuclear industry's call for still more government support will find a more sympathetic ear in McCain than in Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.). The presumptive Democratic nominee agrees nuclear energy could help combat global warming, but he says there are better alternatives. Indeed, many Democrats and renewable power advocates are upset that the playing field is tilted so far in favor of nukes. Robert Fishman, a veteran utility executive who is now CEO of solar startup Ausra, says the investment tax credit sought by the solar industry would cost less than 1% of the dollars going to nukes and fossil fuels. "I don't think we've done a good job laying out to Senator McCain what the renewable industry can do for the country," Fishman says. So it looks like a few nuclear plants may come online in the U.S.—some as early as 2016—but not as many as McCain wants.

So what? It may be too expensive for the French and EU, but you see India is starving of energy, 6-12 Hrs power cut in rural India, and the economic growth of the poor country like India depends on having electricity, humm... correct that to Nuclear electricity. And it is well worth the top dollars and Euros to get that Nuclear Energy (Those nuclear electricity electrons are very different from the ordinary electricty. electrons; they are blue eyed, spin faster, are lighter, have lucky charm too). Sure France and EU cant afford it India is electricity hungry and surely can afford it with development Rupees chasing right economic priorities.

Reminds me of old black and white movies of yesteryears . So when one is hungry and wants to buy few banana's to quench the fire in the belly with the few annas in pocket. The choice given by the sly shopkeeper is to titillate the nose, eyes & taste buds with the delicious but expensive pastry (that the shopkeeper himself cant afford) for the 8 annas in pocket and the balance 16 annas in instant loan (In fine print to be repaid in 6 months at 55% interest) . The poor Indian of India are being forced to eat the expensive pastry, while bananas will do just fine not to mention it will be more prudent, now as well as 6 months from now.

But hey who can beat the slick advertising of pastry with gyrating hips and navel for the idle eyes to the village langot-walla. I am sure the fish also feels the same when it sees the delicious bait. Life is too short, enjoy it while it last, will deal with the hook later, it cant be worse then grinding poverty we are living now? Right !

Wrong !!!! Use those precious annas in the most judicious way, and not squander in foolish pursuit. Don't sign a loan instrument if you are a villager and not done have not done major in economics.

No Deal.

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 22 Jul 2008 06:00

How many reactors worldwide, in the last 10-20 years, were constructed on time and on/under budget ? How does their figures correlate to standardization of design ?

Specifically, I'm interested in all the corporations quoted as interested in supplying reactors to India, viz. Areva, Rosatom, GE, Westinghouse/Toshiba...), as well as a comparison to Indian reactor projects and how well they were on schedule and on budget. Does anyone have a pointer for a source of information on this ?

Formal data on this would be much more useful than "there were cost overruns in some French reactors, therefore this deal is bad" arguments, because they're not particularly data driven.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 22 Jul 2008 06:16

Quoting Ranganathan:

Were you not the one bawling about paying $$ to US companies but not DRDO for MRCA and SAMs?? Why should India sign this deal when it is clear that it is same as handing over the keys of India's nuke deterrent to US? France and russia may support the deal but then loss of nukes by India does not affect them in anyway now does it? I would rather this govt fall

1. "Were you not the one bawling about paying $$ to US companies but not DRDO for MRCA and SAMs??" Yes, though I wouldn't claim to be "bawling" because I am just not in ur class for that, thank you.

2. "Why should India sign this deal when it is clear that it is same as handing over the keys of India's nuke deterrent to US?" Why should India NOT sign the deal when it is abundantly clear from all the draft agreements that it is NOT anywhere remotely likely to "hand over the keys of India's nuke deterrent to US, please? I know reading is hard, and intellectual honesty is harder when it goes against one's political/ other prejudices, but, that is no excuse, and it gets no kindness from me. What you have posted above about "handing over the keys" is completely baseless and I am tired of reading such stuff. The draft IAEA agreement is posted prominently with several links from this forum, and the draft US-India "123" agreement has been posted and discussed ad nauseum, and there is absolutely no basis in either for your claim.

3. "I would rather this govt fall"..
Q.E. D. That's what it's about, all right, its very obvious.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 22 Jul 2008 06:27

Biraders... I give you the titanium bum.....

A very big deal
By Prem Shankar Jha

India has paid a heavy price for being shut out 40 years ago. The denial of crucial bits of proprietary technology is what lies behind the 20-year delay in indigenising the original (and now obsolete) CANDU nuclear power generation technology; the consistent failure of our defence research laboratories to develop new weapons systems; and our failure to develop an aeronautics industry, particularly the Kaveri engines for the light fighter aircraft that Hindustan Aeronautics Limited has been trying to develop since the early 80s. In the coming years it is certain to delay the development of fast-breeder reactors. Today, India has to humiliatingly account to the IAEA for every gram of titanium it needs for industrial use. This has put impediments in the way of acquiring some of the latest generation chemical plants that need large amounts of titanium.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Jul 2008 06:33

paramu wrote: Exactly, what is the source of funds for our clean leader?

Among the biggest myths that has been propagated - the biggest conspiracy theory of them all is "Indians are poor".

To add to this - one more layer of myth has come into existence - i.e that poor Indians study hard and go to America and make money. The truth is that the richest Indians don't need to go anywhere. The poorest cannot go. The in-between "medium-poor"with access to education study hard, go abroad and make money and acquire fabulous wealth compared to their fathers - but a lifetime of moneymaking in Yamerika for most desis does not come close to the crores that the richest in India are floating in.

One wealthy Indian father with family wealth - a friend of mine had sent his son to Yamerika to study and was concerned about the latter's academic performance. He once told me God has given him so much that "I can provide my son with enough money to buy a huge house in the US and drive around in a fancy sports car. But that is not what I want my son to be doing."

It is not that easy to bribe already wealthy Indians. If you pay money as a bribe and put it in a Swiss account, it is no use unless you can use it in India. It must be brought into India because money is not made in isolation and many hangers on and supporters and goons need to be paid off. That money can come in only by interbank transfer or via Dawood.

The problem with Dawood is that he may opt to keep the money himself.

One alternative is to use a gulf Sheik and his private bank to transfer funds to an Indian bank. But Sheiks apparently skim off 40% or more as "service charges"

"Suitcases" full of money are actually small change.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 22 Jul 2008 06:40

It's a nuclear renaissance, right? Not yet. While smart money is placing multibillion-dollar bets on ethanol, wind power, and solar, it's not throwing buckets of cash at nukes. "The real obstacle isn't the Sierra Club but the 28-year-old analysts on Wall Street," says Bob Simon, Democratic staff director of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

Regulators could balk if proposed designs don't meet construction and safety standards. But memories of the delays, titanic cost overruns, and bankruptcies that ended America's love affair with nuclear power in the mid-20th century are the most daunting obstacle. "Investors remain wary of construction risks," says Paul Ho, a director at Credit Suisse First Boston's (CSR) energy group.

LONG MEMORIES. That's why, five or so years from now, when the first construction and operating licenses are likely to be granted, only the most creditworthy diversified players, such as Duke Energy (DUK) and Southern Co., would be likely to dip a toe in these waters, explains Denise Furey, senior director of global power with Fitch Ratings. With their scale, such companies could finance these projects for a decade or so using some combination of debt and equity. But that's a far cry from a new nuclear age.

Historically, utilities did an "abysmal" job controlling building schedules and costs, says David Schlissel, an economist at Synapse Energy Economics in Cambridge, Mass. Between 1975 and 1989, the average period required to complete a plant soared from 5 years to 12. The bill for a group of 75 first-generation plants totaled $224.1 billion (in current dollars), 219% more than estimated, according to a 1986 Energy Dept. study. In time, many utilities collapsed under these debts even as customers' bills soared.

Power companies say they can bring costs down, thanks to new, standardized plant designs and a streamlined, one-step licensing process. "People forget that the construction problems happened 30 years ago. There's been great progress since then," says NRG CEO David Crane. The company plans to use reactors from General Electric (GE) and Hitachi that have been installed in Japan. This time around, the industry is aiming to build new plants for $1,500 to $2,000 per kilowatt of capacity, compared with a peak, inflation-adjusted cost of about $4,000 in the 1970s.

ENERGY ACT GOODIES. Trouble is, the cheapest plants built recently, all outside the U.S., have cost more than $2,000 per kilowatt. And the advanced designs now on U.S. drawing boards have never been built here. "A first-of-its-kind facility always costs more," says John Kennedy, a director at Standard &Poor's. "Nukes ought to be part of the [energy] mix," says Southern CEO David Ratcliffe, but nobody wants to be first to build. "Everyone would actually like to be No. 10," he says.

Last year's Energy Act dangled $13 billion worth of extra treats before the nuclear industry, according to Public Citizen, a consumer-interest group. These are focused on the first six plants and range from some $2 billion set aside to cover construction overruns due to legal challenges to a production tax credit worth up to $5.7 billion. Yet all that still may not "provide a sufficient incentive to pursue new construction," says Kennedy.

Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman offers couched assurances on nukes. "I'm convinced we'll get the first six reactors, with construction starting by 2010," he says. "But we don't need six reactors. We need 16, or 26." Until licenses for those first few plants are granted a few years from now, financiers and many utilities may just wait to see how the game changes. "Wall Street is very shortsighted," Furey says. Or maybe it just can't forget what it has already seen.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 22 Jul 2008 06:42

India has never been poor, only poorly governed or poorly managed country

Spinster 1999

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 22 Jul 2008 06:43

Democracy at its finest:

He says he is confident that the people of India and the elected representatives are smart enough to see through this game, and to defeat the UPA. Now he wants to know what crime Saddam Hussein committed that he had to be brought down. Um -- so he is voting against the UPA because Saddam Hussein was brought down? Oh-kay. Meanwhile, actress Jayaprada, in a bright green sari that in those lights has turned her face a light green, fighting down a yawn and trying to look interested.

Now he is taking up for the Left: When you insulted it by announcing in Japan that you are going ahead with the deal, did you think of the party that had kept you in power all these years?

I am having considerable fun watching the expressions of the MPs. One bloke, just behind the speaker, is playing with his tongue, flicking it in and out and munching on something. Mohammad Shakeel is having the time of his life, constant smile on his face, and much jokes for his neighbors. Meanwhile, the BSP speaker goes on. He is saying quite a bit, all at the top of his voice, and it is very clear that he doesn't like America. Uh oh, he doesn't like Laloo either, because he is going on about Lalu and saying if he had a conscience, he would join the BSP.Lalu gestures at the MP, asking him to talk to the Speaker, not to him.

Prem Panicker of course lives down to his DDM roots - he claimed that the 123 agreement has not been drafted, then when someone caught him on that, he squirmed so much that he should be an MP too. And his bias just shines brightly through his ears.

"Mmmm... there is a woman two rows behind Balu, who is peacefully asleep. Got her earphones on, so probably the speeches put her to sleep. Balu now talks of how Bush and Singh entered into a dialogue. It was not new, the genesis lies in the time of Pandit Nehru.

Prem says, The sleeping lady briefly woke up when Nehrus name came up, and is dropping off again -- seriously, there is a 'where am I?' look in her eyes! "

"He says the issue is of parliamentary etiquette, but doesn't say how. He now says the government says it will not share the details of the agreement with the Left sicne it is not party to the government. But now we find that the deal is on the internet. The government says it is a national issue, but we don't talk to the nation about this

He now says he would like to analyse his own reaction to India against the global nuclear firmament. Good grief.
We started with nothing, and dared to attempt the impossible. And so on.

There's two ladies behind him, who are having a total blast. Much talking, much laughing, no listening, and for once, i don't blame them -- this guy is so tepid, he hasn't even been interrupted once."

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Jul 2008 08:35

India hopes to get support at IAEA, NSG

N-deal: India impresses IAEA, NSG

France to back India at IAEA, NSG

Sale of uranium only after IAEA, NSG nod: India, Oz

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 22 Jul 2008 08:50

Prem says, The issue of the nuclear deal was going on for two years, and it was in August 2007 that for the first time I got the impression that the government has made up its mind to go ahead. He talks of a correspondent of a Calcutta daily who was asked to front page a story that the government has taken a decision, that it was non negotiable, and if the Left does not approve they can do what they want, Advani says

Prem says, He says that this has been going on from last August, and that it has given him the impression there is nothing else on the government's mind. "So when the PM just said this debate was unnecessary when the government had to focus on inflation and other issues, I am surprised."

Prem says, He points out that the government first said, the Parliament will be consulted BEFORE going to the IAEA and the NSG. But now you are saying you had assured that AFTER those two steps, you will come to the House to brief us.

Prem says, He now points out that the MPs were not allowed to see the draft IAEA resolution. "It is classified", the government says. "But the countries of the NSG, and people around the world, can see it, but not our own Indian MPs."

Vivek Sreenivasan · Post by **Vivek Sreenivasan** » 22 Jul 2008 09:24

I am not up to date on the full ramifications of the nuclear deal, (none of us are as the full text has not been made available) but it is my impression that India has got a good deal. The basic crux of the deal is this passage that i got from the Washington Post (full article available from link below), "Under the agreement, India would place its civilian nuclear facilities, but not its nuclear weapons program,under international monitoring and would continue a ban on nuclear testing. The United States would give India access to U.S. nuclear technology and conventional weapons systems". As far as i can see India can continue to develop nuclear weapons unhindred and also get access to Westen nuke plants as well as source uranium from countires like Australia. Obvioulsy if India restart nuclear testing they would violate the agreement, but then India does not lose anything as it would be a return to status quo. Am i missing something here? Why are people opposed to this deal when it is in the national interests?

Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01847.html

pradeepe · Post by **pradeepe** » 22 Jul 2008 09:51

I dont know why many are cringing at the current events. IMVVHO, its the beauty of Indian democracy at work. Forget all the money that is supposedly changing hands (btw, isnt that the basis for capitalism, be it over or under the table

) the beauty is that all the smoke and din that is being created masks very well crashing sound as the NPA asses come down to earth at a=g.

Btw, 25, 50, 100 crores is pocket change for a person who is an MP. As shivji clearly stated, folks sitting in the US view this kind of money as kubera's wealth. Reality is that its pocket change for the wealthy in India. Dont let the dhothis and crisp white khadi shirts fool you.